In the discussion concerning the “an eye for an eye” principle, I support Jones, who said that this commandment would not leave a blind society, but to a one-eyed society, which is different. To my mind, both sides are right in some aspects because violence leads to even more violence. However, it is sometimes impossible to fight violence only by non-resistance to evil, and punishment should serve as a restriction against new crimes and abuses.
The side I have chosen is connected to the overall level of development of humanity. It seems to me that at the moment, there is too much violence now in the world, which makes it impossible to totally refuse to use penitentiary systems. Although it may seem a paradox, sometimes weapons and prisons are on guard for peace. There are always people who are willing to break the rules, steal things, abuse defenceless and weak people, or do something else. If they knew that they could be met with a weapon or caught by police and put into prison, they would not feel unpunished.
Thus, the metaphor concerning the one-eyed society means that although punishment for crimes is hard and leads to aggression, it is still a restriction. A one-eyed person would remember the obstacles at which they have lost the eye and would not repeat their mistakes. When people become kinder and build a developed society, where they will care about each other and work for the common good, it will be possible to refuse from the eye for an eye principle. Still, it seems that people are not ready for it yet, and this transition should be gradual.